Geoengineering Climate - Geoingeniería del Clima. Note: "academic arguments against research into GE have been erroneously premised on the possibility of future deployment when in truth this deployment already happened, even if unintended." OE 4/2013
The tabs below (list does not equal endorsement) link to academic research, news and public perception and activism.

There is no doubt, we are living trough a period of climatic change brought about by, among many factors, the natural variability of the climate [1][2] exacerbated by antrhopogenic activities. [3]

But there is also another factor, geoengineering emerging out of the shadows of the military environmental and climatic weapons research and development (developed) arsenal [4] and not the other way around as both critics and proponents of geoengineering wrongly suggest.

Although we can't point to specific climatic or environmental catastrophes as intentionally driven, we can say that technologies and philosophies exist that would make intentionality of this type of events no longer impossible nor unthinkable.

With that in mind I leave you with the following excerpt.

2. Thinking
Locally, Acting Globally

My point is
that the choice Harding demanded on the grounds of pure mathematics opened
certain options while closing others. Biomass calculus accredited the origins
of and the solutions to the ‘population problem’ not to history and politics but
to biology. Population ecologists
justified coercive measures through science, (Emphasis mine) and carrying
capacity became their economic instrument. In terms of populations carrying capacity
demarcated the maximum number of a species that an environment could support
indefinitely without reducing its ability to support the same number in the
future. In terms of nature’s revenues, Harding defined carrying capacity as “the
level of exploitation that will yield the maximum return, in the long run.” 19The problem of limited ecological carrying capacity gave rise to the
question of how to dispense with increasing “surplus” of human beings and
entire populations. 20 (Emphasis mine)

______________________

Advocates
of sufficiency argued in terms of absolute limits, stressing the need for sustained
resource use and complete material recycling. As Roberson points out, the
economist Kenneth Building, one of the founders of ecological economics,
promoted ecological integrity and steady state economy (96). However, also
promoters of efficiency called on the Spaceship Earth metaphor. The architect
Richard Buckminster Fuller built on the proficient technological design to
achieve development and economic growth. Fuller meant to overcome relative
limits trough ecological modernization. Spaceship
Earth to him became the prototype of an environment yet to come, controlled by
the global science and engineering elite. 23(Emphasis mine)

Excerps from comments by Sabine Höhler’s, KTH Royal
Institute of Technology, Stockholm on
review of Thomas Robertsons’s The Malthusian Moment: Global Population Growth
and the Birth of American Environmentalism

A great example of how science may be used or abused can be found in following article by the Observer, reprinted by the Guardian UK. Unfortunately mathematics is not the only science that can be used in this manner, not only to 'advance' a philosophical viewpoint but also to justify implementation of any given 'solution to a perceived threat'.

"Jenkins takes into account the various complexities involved in addressing climate change to present guidelines for a new multifaceted ethic. He is pushing for an ethic which carries both a hopeful vision and realistic actions. I believe that balancing between these two pulls is vital for religious communities – they can neither be so hopeful or visionary as to abandon this world, nor so realistic and practical as to forgo any meaningful action for change. The underlying question is how religious communities can motivate themselves – and potentially others – through these two pulls towards environmental action. One means of motivation is coercion, which Jenkins supports by arguing for setting a price on carbon. (49) If faith communities can use political coercion to motivate individuals towards sustainable choices, what other forms of coercion are permissible? Ought faith communities to utilize social psychology to guide, or manipulate, individuals towards its desired ends, namely actions addressing climate change? Can physical violence be used, if it seems to be the only means to the desired end? While I whole-heartedly agree with the ends, how much coercion and what kind can faith communities enlist? More importantly, how does a faith community determine the answers to the above questions?

Is it possible to motivate individuals and communities without the use of any coercion? Is a strong theological story sufficient motivation? For those with a deep faith and lives firmly rooted in their religious tradition, a compelling theology may be enough motivation. I have worked with some such people. However, in both my work in progressive reformed churches and in activist communities not religiously identified, I have witnessed more activism grounded in a gut feel of what is “right” or loosely tied to theological platitudes than activism deliberately developed from deep theological reflection. That is only to say that we need more than a compelling theological story to motivate religious actors towards sustainability efforts.

Are there means of motivation which offer more than a story, but do not resort to coercion? Are they feasible options in addressing climate change?"

When most
Americans think of environmentalism, they think of the political left, of
vegans dressed in organic-hemp fabric, lofting protest signs. In reality,
writes Jacob Darwin Hamblin, the movement--and its dire predictions--owe more
to the Pentagon than the counterculture.

In Arming
Mother Nature, Hamblin argues that military planning for World War III
essentially created "catastrophic environmentalism": the idea that
human activity might cause global natural disasters. This awareness, Hamblin
shows, emerged out of dark ambitions, as governments poured funds into environmental
science after World War II, searching for ways to harness natural processes--to
kill millions of people. Proposals included the use of nuclear weapons to
create artificial tsunamis or melt the ice caps to drown coastal cities;
setting fire to vast expanses of vegetation; and changing local climates.
Oxford botanists advised British generals on how to destroy enemy crops during
the war in Malaya; American scientists attempted to alter the weather in
Vietnam. This work raised questions that went beyond the goal of weaponizing
nature. By the 1980s, the C.I.A. was studying the likely effects of global
warming on Soviet harvests. "Perhaps one of the surprises of this book is
not how little was known about environmental change, but rather how much,"
Hamblin writes. Driven initially by strategic imperatives, Cold War scientists
learned to think globally and to grasp humanity's power to alter the
environment. "We know how we can modify the ionosphere," nuclear
physicist Edward Teller proudly stated. "We have already done it."

Teller never repented. But many of the same
individuals and institutions that helped the Pentagon later warned of global
warming and other potential disasters. Brilliantly argued and deeply
researched, Arming Mother Nature changes our understanding of the history of
the Cold War and the birth of modern environmental science

“These
geo-engineering schemes seek to mitigate the effect of fossil fuel combustion
on the climate without abating fossil fuel use”

(Emphasis mine)

Carrying
Capacity

“That
resource limits, including geographical space, set the maximum population size
of a species was conventional wisdom at one time in ecology and maintains
varying degrees of currency (for example, in conservation biology and
ecological economics). Such
relationships are referred to as carrying
capacity and are measured by the number of an organism that can be
supported by the requisite renewable resources of the environment. It would be a mistake, however, to assume
that the application of the carrying capacity concept to human-environment relationships
was borrowed directly from the modern science of ecology. Phrased differently, the antecedents of its
applications to human populations are old, traced back in Western though at least
to the seminal population-resource a relationship of Thomas Robert Malthus
(1798) (and assumed closed system) sets the limits to which human population
numbers can grow. Beyond these limits
and without a change in technology, the resource base collapses, the
environment degrades and a Malthusian crisis ensues (Coleman and Schofield,
1986).”

-----------------------------

“Critical
states and flows at least by implication are thought to be largely unsusbstituable
and operate at global rather than local scales.
Exogenous flows at the level of
the biosphere are reduced by some to incoming solar radiation, funneled through
human appropriation of net primary productivity, for example (Vitousek et al,
1997). Places and regions differ in
their roles as sources and recipients of global change, and in their abilities
to respond to change. They are however, recognized as connected and ther “carrying
capacities” calculated trough such measures as “ecological footprints” (Rees
and Wackernage, 1994). This change ins
usage may alleviate the problems inherent in the former meaning of carrying
capacity, but it raise new criticisms, largely of a political nature. Reformulated this way, it is suggested by
some that the economically developed world seeks to assert a new kind of
authority over the remainder of the world, potentially retarding development
elsewhere.

The carrying capacity principle remains in
its cycle of interest that began in the 1990s.
Other versions will no doubt emerge in future cycles. Its staying power rests in its centrality to
the ultimate human environment questions.
Does the environment ultimately set limits on humankind? Or, can human ingenuity restructure nature as
needed for human use? These questions
and carrying capacity are central to the tensions surrounding the emergence of
ecological economics and attempts to calculate the economic value of the
biosphere (Costanza et al., 1997, Pearce, 1998)—the ultimate limit?”